There is no time dilation or physical length contraction.
in [Relativity]
|
From: glird on 22 Nov 2009 20:41 On Nov 20, 9:10 pm, BURT wrote: > On Nov 20, 6:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD wrote: > > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird wrote: > > > > <<fortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. For example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false is ignored. >> > > > >< Well, wait a minute. The statement by quantum theory that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom either all of it or none of it is absorbed, this doesn't mean that the absorption cannot be followed by a re-emission. Heck, this is where the absorption and emission spectra of gases COME from: the absorption of quanta and then the re-emission of other quanta. There is no difference between this and the Compton effect, except that the Compton effect produces a continuous spectrum, as the quanta are being absorbed by free, not bound, electrons. > > > > < We can discuss that later. Meanwhile, let's look at the point now being made: "As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a "singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored." Regardless of how the Compton Effect works, the point is this: The Compton effect is an explanation of how a red shift could happen without any expansion of anything at all, thus without any big bing. > > > > >< Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang. > > > > < The point is: If, as science believes, matter can be made from energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then ALL the energy that now exists ALWAYS existed - which rules out a big bing anyway. > > > ><< So is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created or destroyed". >> > > ><Well, first of all, I don't know where you got this "first law of Physics", because it is not accurate. Matter is routinely created and destroyed. > > > > < That's not true, PD. If you'd like to argue this issue with me, please give us your definition of "matter" and "energy". Here, from "What it all is and Why" (W2), are mine: Matter: "Matter" is that substance which occupies space. It is the stuff we are familiar with as the essential part of tangible solid, liquid, and gaseous objects. From lifelong sensory experience of it, all of us know what is here meant by "matter". Energy: Energy used to be defined in Physics. It was taught that "Energy is the ability to do work." When that definition was given up no replacement was provided. ... This poses a deep-seated problem: If Physics cannot define energy, it doesn't really know what energy is! If it doesn't know precisely what energy is, then how can it measure all of it in order to learn whether or not it is fully conserved? How, in short, can the primary law of modern physics be that the total quantity of energy must always be conserved, if modern physics can't define energy thus doesn't know what it ultimately is? Several paragraphs later, W2 did define energy, but I will defer that until after you give us yours, PD. > > > >< Electrons and positrons annihilate every day as a diagnostic tool in hospitals (called PET scanning -- you can google that), which completely destroys that matter and produces energy instead. > > > > < An electron isn't a particle of matter, it is a wave-node, a pressure-density imbalance circulating in an atom's shell-layer at cFs, where c is the speed of light in the dilute matter filling a vacuum and Fs = 1/137.03609 is the fine structure constant. If you are interested, we can discuss the meaning of this later. > > > > ><Secondly, please keep in mind that ALL laws of physics are *inferred* from nature by humans, and that some of those inferences are correct and some of them prove to be only correct some of the time and in some cases they prove to be just plain incorrect. Nature doesn't change (much), but our guesses about the laws by which nature works do change all the time as we learn more. This is as it should be. > > > > < The "laws of physics" are equations. They aren't "inferred"; they are obtained from experimental data, i.e. numerical quantities found by measuring some aspect of the world. An equation is a shorthand way of stating and inter-relating these quantities. Although such equations may not fit data provided by more refined experiments, it isn't the data or the equations that we need to explore; it is the nature of the things we are measuring - which present physicists ignore. > > > ><<< Nature is very surprising. > > > > ><< To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason, and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as interpreted by our sense of reason, > > > > ><Please keep in mind that our senses were honed to deal with nature at our scale and for our survival purposes, and in fact our senses are honed to only a thin slice of nature. We therefore make generalizations and guess rules that apply to that THIN SLICE of nature. Those often work very well in that thin slice, even though they turn out to be only approximations of better rules that apply more broadly in nature. It is only in the course of the last couple of centuries that we have been able to systematically investigate nature in scales well outside our senses, and in so doing we've discovered that some of the rules we thought were general are in fact only approximations. > > > > < Yes. Even so, as I said: "... the only thing about nature that IS surprising is that our scientists believe total nonsense is true even though experimental evidence proves it is false." > > > > >< You'll have to give me an example of experimental evidence that proves what we believe is in fact false. I'll make a small wager that in most cases, it is actually an example of you misunderstanding what science actually says.> > > > < You name the odds and I'll name the amount.> > > > ><We've already covered your misunderstanding of the absorption of quanta. What other statements do you think are countered by experimental evidence? > > > > < The 2nd law of thermodynamics. Wanna bet? :-) > > Time slows down in gravity and motion but the atom does not become flat. > Yes, Burt, time (the rate at which events happen) does slow down in a gravitational field and is also a function of the speed of a system's motion. But if lengths remain unchanged then the rate has to change by Q = q^2 = c^2-v^2; wherefore the experimentally confirmed Lorentz transformation equations, in which rates run q-slow, would be invalid. Why, then, do you insist that the length of an atom is constant regardless of its speed/ glird
From: BURT on 22 Nov 2009 21:10 On Nov 22, 5:41 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 20, 9:10 pm, BURT wrote:> On Nov 20, 6:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird wrote: > > > > > <<fortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. For example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false is ignored. >> > > > > >< Well, wait a minute. The statement by quantum theory that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom either all of it or none of it is absorbed, this doesn't mean that the absorption cannot be followed by a re-emission. Heck, this is where the absorption and emission spectra of gases COME from: the absorption of quanta and then the re-emission of other quanta.. There is no difference between this and the Compton effect, except that the Compton effect produces a continuous spectrum, as the quanta are being absorbed by free, not bound, electrons. > > > > > < We can discuss that later. Meanwhile, let's look at the point now being made: > > "As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all > the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a > "singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that > there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored." > Regardless of how the Compton Effect works, the point is this: The > Compton effect is an explanation of how a red shift could happen > without any expansion of anything at all, thus without any big bing. > > > > > > > >< Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang. > > > > > < The point is: If, as science believes, matter can be made from energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then ALL the energy that now exists ALWAYS existed - which rules out a big bing anyway. > > > > ><< So is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created or destroyed". >> > > > ><Well, first of all, I don't know where you got this "first law of Physics", because it is not accurate. Matter is routinely created and destroyed. > > > > > < That's not true, PD. If you'd like to argue this issue with me, please give us your definition of "matter" and "energy". Here, from "What it all is and Why" (W2), are mine: > > Matter: "Matter" is that substance which occupies space. It is the > stuff we are familiar with as the essential part of tangible solid, > liquid, and gaseous objects. From lifelong sensory experience of it, > all of us know what is here meant by "matter". > Energy: Energy used to be defined in Physics. It was taught that > "Energy is the ability to do work." When that definition was given up > no replacement was provided. ... This poses a deep-seated problem: > If Physics cannot define energy, it doesn't really know what energy > is! > If it doesn't know precisely what energy is, then how can it measure > all of it in order to learn whether or not it is fully conserved? > How, in short, can the primary law of modern physics be that the > total quantity of energy must always be conserved, if modern physics > can't define energy thus doesn't know what it ultimately is? > Several paragraphs later, W2 did define energy, but I will defer > that until after you give us yours, PD. > > > > >< Electrons and positrons annihilate every day as a diagnostic tool in hospitals (called PET scanning -- you can google that), which completely destroys that matter and produces energy instead. > > > > > < An electron isn't a particle of matter, it is a wave-node, a pressure-density imbalance circulating in an atom's shell-layer at cFs, where c is the speed of light in the dilute matter filling a vacuum and Fs = 1/137..03609 is the fine structure constant. > > If you are interested, we can discuss the meaning of this later. > > > > > ><Secondly, please keep in mind that ALL laws of physics are *inferred* from nature by humans, and that some of those inferences are correct and some of them prove to be only correct some of the time and in some cases they prove to be just plain incorrect. Nature doesn't change (much), but our guesses about the laws by which nature works do change all the time as we learn more. This is as it should be. > > > > > < The "laws of physics" are equations. They aren't "inferred"; they are obtained from experimental data, i.e. numerical quantities found by measuring some aspect of the world. An equation is a shorthand way of stating and inter-relating these quantities. > > Although such equations may not fit data provided by more refined > experiments, it isn't the data or the equations that we need to > explore; it is the nature of the things we are measuring - which > present physicists ignore. > > > > ><<< Nature is very surprising. > > > > > ><< To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason, and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as interpreted by our sense of reason, > > > > > ><Please keep in mind that our senses were honed to deal with nature at our scale and for our survival purposes, and in fact our senses are honed to only a thin slice of nature. We therefore make generalizations and guess rules that apply to that THIN SLICE of nature. Those often work very well in that thin slice, even though they turn out to be only approximations of better rules that apply more broadly in nature. It is only in the course of the last couple of centuries that we have been able to systematically investigate nature in scales well outside our senses, and in so doing we've discovered that some of the rules we thought were general are in fact only approximations. > > > > > < Yes. Even so, as I said: > > "... the only thing about nature that IS surprising is that our > scientists believe total nonsense is true even though experimental > evidence proves it is false." > > > > > > > >< You'll have to give me an example of experimental evidence that proves what we believe is in fact false. I'll make a small wager that in most cases, it is actually an example of you misunderstanding what science actually says.> > > > > < You name the odds and I'll name the amount.> > > > > ><We've already covered your misunderstanding of the absorption of quanta. What other statements do you think are countered by experimental evidence? > > > > > < The 2nd law of thermodynamics. > Wanna bet? :-) > > > Time slows down in gravity and motion but the atom does not become flat.. > > Yes, Burt, time (the rate at which events happen) does slow down in > a gravitational field and is also a function of the speed of a > system's motion. This creates two times that slow down in the aether. But they come together as one. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 23 Nov 2009 09:57 On Nov 20, 8:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD wrote: > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird wrote: > > > > > <<fortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. For example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false is ignored. >> > > >< Well, wait a minute. The statement by quantum theory that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom either all of it or none of it is absorbed, this doesn't mean that the absorption cannot be followed by a re-emission. Heck, this is where the absorption and emission spectra of gases COME from: the absorption of quanta and then the re-emission of other quanta. There is no difference between this and the Compton effect, except that the Compton effect produces a continuous spectrum, as the quanta are being absorbed by free, not bound, electrons. > > > We can discuss that later. Meanwhile, let's look at the point now > being made: > > ><< As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a "singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored. >> But it's simply not true that present science believes that all energy originated at a point, from nothing. Matter yes, but matter is not a conserved quantity. It seems to me that the problem is what you are reading for source material. > > Regardless of how the Compton Effect works, the point is this: The > Compton effect is an explanation of how a red shift could happen > without any expansion of anything at all, thus without any big bing. No it's not, because Compton scattering, if it were what was going on, would result in a *spread* in the spectral lines, as well as a shift. It would *have* to. But the spread is not observed. > > >< Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang. > > > The point is: If, as science believes, matter can be made from > energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then ALL the energy > that now exists ALWAYS existed - which rules out a big bing anyway. No, it DOESN'T rule out the Big Bang because the Big Bang does not say that energy is created from nothing. You have been reading the wrong materials, apparently. > > ><< So is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created or destroyed". >> > ><Well, first of all, I don't know where you got this "first law of Physics", because it is not accurate. Matter is routinely created and destroyed. > > > That's not true, PD. If you'd like to argue this issue with me, > please give us your definition of "matter" and "energy". Here, from > "What it all is and Why" (W2), are mine: > "Matter" is that substance which occupies space. Has mass and occupies space, yes. It consists of interacting fermions, yes. > It is the stuff we > are familiar with as the essential part of tangible solid, liquid, and > gaseous objects. From lifelong sensory experience of it, all of us > know what is here meant by "matter". Note that matter is not conserved. > Energy: Energy used to be defined in Physics. It was taught that, > "Energy is the ability to do work." When that definition was given up > no replacement was provided. ... That definition has not been given up. It still applies. > This poses a deep-seated problem: If > Physics cannot define energy, it doesn't really know what energy is! > If it doesn't know precisely what energy is, then how can it measure > all of it in order to learn whether or not it is fully conserved? In every isolated system we've measured, it is conserved. > How, > in short, can the primary law of modern physics be that the total > quantity of energy must always be conserved, if modern physics can't > define energy thus doesn't know what it ultimately is? I don't know why you think it can't be defined. > Several paragraphs later, W2 did define energy, but I will defer that > until after you give us yours, PD. > > >< Electrons and positrons annihilate every day as a diagnostic tool in hospitals (called PET scanning -- you can google that), which completely destroys that matter and produces energy instead. > > > An electron isn't a particle of matter, Electrons are components of atoms and atoms are matter by the definition you and I agreed on of what matter is. > it is a wave-node, a pressure- > density imbalance circulating in an atom's shell-layer at cFs, where c > is the speed of light in the dilute matter filling a vacuum and Fs = > 1/137.03609 is the fine structure constant. > If you are interested, we can discuss the meaning of this later. > > ><Secondly, please keep in mind that ALL laws of physics are *inferred* from nature by humans, and that some of those inferences are correct and some of them prove to be only correct some of the time and in some cases they prove to be just plain incorrect. Nature doesn't change (much), but our guesses about the laws by which nature works do change all the time as we learn more. This is as it should be. > > > The "laws of physics" are equations. Well, that's not quite right. Laws of physics can be *expressed* in algebraic shorthand of equations, but they aren't equations in themselves. > They aren't "inferred"; they > are obtained from experimental data, The regularity of the relation is what is inferred. > i.e. numerical quantities found > by measuring some aspect of the world. An equation is a shorthand way > of stating and inter-relating these quantities. > Although such equations may not fit data provided by more refined > experiments, it isn't the data or the equations that we need to > explore; it is the nature of the things we are measuring - which > present physicists ignore. Present physics doesn't ignore it at all. What gives you the impression that it is ignored? > > ><<< Nature is very surprising. > > > ><< To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason, and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as interpreted by our sense of reason, > > > ><Please keep in mind that our senses were honed to deal with nature at our scale and for our survival purposes, and in fact our senses are honed to only a thin slice of nature. We therefore make generalizations and guess rules that apply to that THIN SLICE of > > nature. Those often work very well in that thin slice, even though > they turn out to be only approximations of better rules that apply > more broadly in nature. It is only in the course of the last couple of > centuries that we have been able to systematically investigate nature > in scales well outside our senses, and in so doing we've discovered > that some of the rules we thought were general are in fact only > approximations. > > > Yes. Even so, as I said: > > ><< the only thing about nature that IS surprising is that our scientists believe total nonsense is true even though experimental evidence proves it is false. > What experimental evidence? > > >< You'll have to give me an example of experimental evidence that proves what we believe is in fact false. I'll make a small wager that in most cases, it is actually an example of you misunderstanding what science actually says.> > > You name the odds and I'll name the amount. 20:1 > > ><We've already covered your misunderstanding of the absorption of quanta.. What other statements do you think are countered by experimental evidence? > > > The 2nd law of thermodynamics. OK, where is your evidence? > Wanna bet? :-) Sure. > > glird
From: BURT on 23 Nov 2009 14:46
On Nov 23, 6:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 20, 8:08 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 1:52 pm, PD wrote: > > On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, glird wrote: > > > > <<fortunately, our scientists ignore some of the experimental evidence in favor of their preconceived erroneous notions. For example; quantum theory asserts that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom, "either all or none of it is absorbed". That the Compton Effect - which shows that when light transits an atom "all or SOME of its energy is absorbed and the light continues on with that much less energy remaining in it" - proves that this theory is false is ignored. >> > > > >< Well, wait a minute. The statement by quantum theory that when a quantum of energy interacts with an atom either all of it or none of it is absorbed, this doesn't mean that the absorption cannot be followed by a re-emission. Heck, this is where the absorption and emission spectra of gases COME from: the absorption of quanta and then the re-emission of other quanta. There is no difference between this and the Compton effect, except that the Compton effect produces a continuous spectrum, as the quanta are being absorbed by free, not bound, electrons. > > > > We can discuss that later. Meanwhile, let's look at the point now > > being made: > > > ><< As a result of this ignore-ance, present science believes that all the matter and energy in the universe originated at a point - called a "singularity" - in nowhere about 13 billion years ago. The fact that there is no mechanism by which that could have happened is ignored. >> > > But it's simply not true that present science believes that all energy > originated at a point, from nothing. Matter yes, but matter is not a > conserved quantity. It seems to me that the problem is what you are > reading for source material. > > > > > Regardless of how the Compton Effect works, the point is this: The > > Compton effect is an explanation of how a red shift could happen > > without any expansion of anything at all, thus without any big bing. > > No it's not, because Compton scattering, if it were what was going on, > would result in a *spread* in the spectral lines, as well as a shift. > It would *have* to. But the spread is not observed. > > > > > >< Matter yes, energy no. Perhaps you misunderstand the Big Bang. > > > > The point is: If, as science believes, matter can be made from > > energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then ALL the energy > > that now exists ALWAYS existed - which rules out a big bing anyway. > > No, it DOESN'T rule out the Big Bang because the Big Bang does not say > that energy is created from nothing. You have been reading the wrong > materials, apparently. > > > > > ><< So is the first law of Physics: "Neither matter or energy can be created or destroyed". >> > > ><Well, first of all, I don't know where you got this "first law of Physics", because it is not accurate. Matter is routinely created and destroyed. > > > > That's not true, PD. If you'd like to argue this issue with me, > > please give us your definition of "matter" and "energy". Here, from > > "What it all is and Why" (W2), are mine: > > "Matter" is that substance which occupies space. > > Has mass and occupies space, yes. It consists of interacting fermions, > yes. > > > It is the stuff we > > are familiar with as the essential part of tangible solid, liquid, and > > gaseous objects. From lifelong sensory experience of it, all of us > > know what is here meant by "matter". > > Note that matter is not conserved. > > > Energy: Energy used to be defined in Physics. It was taught that, > > "Energy is the ability to do work." When that definition was given up > > no replacement was provided. ... > > That definition has not been given up. It still applies. > > > This poses a deep-seated problem: If > > Physics cannot define energy, it doesn't really know what energy is! > > If it doesn't know precisely what energy is, then how can it measure > > all of it in order to learn whether or not it is fully conserved? > > In every isolated system we've measured, it is conserved. > > > How, > > in short, can the primary law of modern physics be that the total > > quantity of energy must always be conserved, if modern physics can't > > define energy thus doesn't know what it ultimately is? > > I don't know why you think it can't be defined. > > > Several paragraphs later, W2 did define energy, but I will defer that > > until after you give us yours, PD. > > > >< Electrons and positrons annihilate every day as a diagnostic tool in hospitals (called PET scanning -- you can google that), which completely destroys that matter and produces energy instead. > > > > An electron isn't a particle of matter, > > Electrons are components of atoms and atoms are matter by the > definition you and I agreed on of what matter is. > > > it is a wave-node, a pressure- > > density imbalance circulating in an atom's shell-layer at cFs, where c > > is the speed of light in the dilute matter filling a vacuum and Fs = > > 1/137.03609 is the fine structure constant. > > If you are interested, we can discuss the meaning of this later. > > > ><Secondly, please keep in mind that ALL laws of physics are *inferred* from nature by humans, and that some of those inferences are correct and some of them prove to be only correct some of the time and in some cases they prove to be just plain incorrect. Nature doesn't change (much), but our guesses about the laws by which nature works do change all the time as we learn more. This is as it should be. > > > > The "laws of physics" are equations. > > Well, that's not quite right. Laws of physics can be *expressed* in > algebraic shorthand of equations, but they aren't equations in > themselves. > > > They aren't "inferred"; they > > are obtained from experimental data, > > The regularity of the relation is what is inferred. > > > i.e. numerical quantities found > > by measuring some aspect of the world. An equation is a shorthand way > > of stating and inter-relating these quantities. > > Although such equations may not fit data provided by more refined > > experiments, it isn't the data or the equations that we need to > > explore; it is the nature of the things we are measuring - which > > present physicists ignore. > > Present physics doesn't ignore it at all. What gives you the > impression that it is ignored? > > > > > > > > > ><<< Nature is very surprising. > > > > ><< To those who deny sense evidence and the validity of human reason, and ignore salient experimental facts, that is true. For those of us who base their conclusions on the evidence given by our senses - which have been honed by billions of years of survival of the fittest - as interpreted by our sense of reason, > > > > ><Please keep in mind that our senses were honed to deal with nature at our scale and for our survival purposes, and in fact our senses are honed to only a thin slice of nature. We therefore make generalizations and guess rules that apply to that THIN SLICE of > > > nature. Those often work very well in that thin slice, even though > > they turn out to be only approximations of better rules that apply > > more broadly in nature. It is only in the course of the last couple of > > centuries that we have been able to systematically investigate nature > > in scales well outside our senses, and in so doing we've discovered > > that some of the rules we thought were general are in fact only > > approximations. > > > > Yes. Even so, as I said: > > > ><< the only thing about nature that IS surprising is that our scientists believe total nonsense is true even though experimental evidence proves it is false. > > > What experimental evidence? > > > > > >< You'll have to give me an example of experimental evidence that proves what we believe is in fact false. I'll make a small wager that in most cases, it is actually an example of you misunderstanding what science actually says.> > > > You name the odds and I'll name the amount. > > 20:1 > > > > > ><We've already covered your misunderstanding of the absorption of quanta. What other statements do you think are countered by experimental evidence? > > > > The 2nd law of thermodynamics. > > OK, where is your evidence? > > > Wanna bet? :-) > > Sure. > > > > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Compoton means light energy transfers to mass. This is heat in the aether or a light energy push. Mitch Raemsch |